In Benami property cases, the Supreme Court has wisely placed restrictions on retrospective penal action in a civil law. Explain (200 Words)
Refer - Business Line
Enrich the answer from other sources, if the question demands.
IAS Parliament 3 years
KEY POINTS
· The Supreme Court’s unambiguous assertion of the Constitutional principle of prohibiting retrospective criminal laws has to be welcomed.
· The judgement provides relief to thousands of property-holders like the respondent company in the present case which faced criminal prosecution for transactions that were denominated as “benami” prior to 2016.
· The presumption was that Article 20 barring retrospective criminal legislation would not influence these prosecutions because the law was not being applied retrospectively; it already existed in the statute book.
· The government accordingly argued before the Supreme Court that the 2016 Act was not substantive but only procedural in operationalising the 1988 Act.
· But the Court rightly gauged the problem as “a tussle between the normative (subjective opinion) and positivist (hypothesis that can be empirically tested) positions regarding the nature of a crime and punishment”.
· A punitive provision cannot be couched as a civil provision to bypass the mandate under Article 20(1) of the Constitution which follows the settled legal principle that “what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly”.
· The Court ruled against retrospective application of the confiscatory provision in Section 5, but left the question of its prospective application open. Yet, the provision is suspect.
· In sum, crucial Constitutional boundaries have been spelt out by the apex court as a reminder to lawmakers.
PANDI SANTHOSH RAJA S 3 years
Kindly review
IAS Parliament 3 years
Try to provide a comprehensive conclusion. Keep Writing.
Aravind R 3 years
Kindly review this mam/sir
IAS Parliament 3 years
Good attempt. Keep Writing.
K. V. A 3 years
Pls review
IAS Parliament 3 years
Good attempt. Keep Writing.
